Talk:Circuit total limitation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Informative Article[edit]

This is an informative article. I was able to find information here that was unavailable elsewhere. Example: The 2005 Cutler Hammer Retail Solutions Catalog references NEC 384.15 for CTL issues. This Wikipedia article quickly informed me that this article changed to NEC 408.54. The following pictures or illustrations would be helpful: 1. CTL rejection tab on Cutler Hammer circuit breaker 2. Cutler Hammer notched panel bus bar which accepts breakers with CTL rejection tab. 3. Cutler Hammer non-notched panel bus bar which will not accept breakers with CTL rejection tab. 4. Cutler Hammer circuit breaker without rejection tab which is accepted by both notched and non-notched bus bars. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky120 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to inspector photos[edit]

I still need to find that Electrical Inspector's web site to insert into:

"As a result, numerous unsafe situations have resulted (citation needed) where panels were dangerously overloaded because these Non-CTL breakers continue to be sold even to this day, 44 years after Non-CTL panels left the market (2009 - 1965 = 44 years)."

I'll find it sooner or later. LP-mn (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for this language...

The end result is that people are able to go to their local hardware or "Big Box" home improvement store, and purchase "Cheater" breakers that are actually for "Replacement Use Only" in pre-1965 panelboards. [citation needed]

Next time I go in to the 'HD', I'll see if I can take pictures of the language that appears on these Non-CTL breakers, then upload them. LP-mn (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I erased this sentence because it repeated what was said in the preceding sentence.Editfromwithout (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better listed at National Electrical Code[edit]

This is a pretty small detail in the US NEC and as it turns out is no longer current anyway. I think this information would be better as a paragraph in National Electrical Code instead of a free-standing article. This also needs copyediting for tone, etc. - Wikipedia style is not to be a how-to manual. I don't think the Canadian code has ever had a limitation on the number of poles in a panel board - it's hard for me to see what the "safety" issue was. And how does the *circuit breaker* know how many poles are already installed in the panel? Surely if you want to limit the number of poles installed, you just limit the physical space in the panel so it can't take more than 42 poles maximum? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Small code item, big issue. Next time I'm at code update class I'm going to pay attention to the URLs where the safety violation photos come from, so that I can link to them. Some of these panels get ugly. And, what in the world do you mean by "is no longer current anyway"? As for a "how to" manual, SOMEBODY needs to write this article so that people like legislators get to understand why this is something to pay attention to... I seriously doubt you understand the issue. I'll try to re-write it for clarity, but as for 'Tone'? Go ahead, help out. LP-mn (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I can't possibly understand the issue. That's what makes working on the Wikipedia so delightful, constantly being told you don't know what you're talking about. This article is unecessary to the encyclopedia and ought to be merged with National Electrical Code. The Wikipedia is also not a platform for advocating your point of view. And no, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. If this is such a safety menace, how come the great brains who sit on Code committees managed to ignore it for...13 or 14 code cycles? Obviously it doesn't bother them as much as it bothers you. And why is it the only Google hit in the *whole world* on the phrase "Circuit total limitation" is THIS article? It's a phrase I've never seen before and sure doesn't show up in my Eaton catalog. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even weirder...look at what the rule says. Surely a more reasonable approach is to list the panelboard and test it with howevermany breaker poles fit! It's not sensible to build a panelboard that has spaces for 116 poles and tell the user "Oh, by the way, when we sent this to UL we only tested up to 16 poles..so don't use all that space!". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I 'agree with your criticisms, Wtshymanski, let me answer your question: Originally, the idea was to test a panel board with every slot filled. n slots, n poles, all happy. Then people invented double-density breakers (either skinny or piggyback), and it became possible to put 2n poles into an n-slot panel board, and the tests were no longer valid. What I'm not sure of is why this actually matters; how does filling a board with 2n 15 A breakers make a situation more dangerous than filling it with n 30 A breakers? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a non-electrical perspective, I agree with the original creator of the article. It is worthwhile to include. If you google "circuit total limitation" you get a lot of sites that talk about it. However, I don't know if the "white book" section of the article is that important. There should be a longer technical explanation of what "circuit total limitation" is, because for someone who doesn't know much about the subject, it doesn't explain it very well. I erased the "copy edit needed" tag but left the "tone" tag.Editfromwithout (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added White Book reference[edit]

I added the White Book reference, and broke it and the NEC reference out into an earlier section. Will try to pay closer attention to next week's Master Code update class when the images from the Inspector's web sites, with the URLs, is flashed up on the screen for our "entertainment". LP-mn (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was up late last night anyway, so I updated the article with several more White Book references. Sometime this weekend I'll take pictures of CTL and Non-CTL breakers, and upload them soon. Sometime next week MAYBE I'll get links to the Inspector web site's images. Oh, and I forgot to log in for the very latest changes. LP-mn (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Half in place, half not[edit]

I stopped by the "big box" home improvement store on the way home today, and took some pictures of at least three types of Cutler Hammer (Eaton) breakers' and their labels. I intend to crop and upload them some time this weekend.
LP-mn (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention... I looked for the phrase “For replacement use only not CTL assemblies” on the Eaton product's Non-CTL, but didn't see it anywhere. I _DID_ see the "Non-CTL" reference on the label. Hmmmm... It's got the UL label, but it's not conforming to the UL labeling requirements... that's odd. Next time I'm at a "big box", I'll take additional photos of the competitor's products.
LP-mn (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictured uploaded. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LP-mn/Sandbox, still working on it. LP-mn (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vertical right hand stack of six images, done with a table.
LP-mn (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked above comments.67.220.13.180 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of links to Non-public domain images?[edit]

What is the proper way to link to non public domain images? As of this writing, I've already placed two links, with my comments, to two images at other Non-Wiki web pages. Is this the correct manner to do so?
LP-mn (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed name to "External Links to Other Images", hope that's betterLP-mn (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format for article[edit]

What is the format supposed to be for articles (like in the lead)? Should there be a - or . splitting up the numbers because both are used? Coralshin (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circuit total limitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circuit_total_limitation&oldid=1200920290"